Maybe it is full of holes Max but, you know how it is. Dictionaries give the shortest, plainest definitions possible.

As another example, here's the definition of dictionary. It has 2 actually:

1) a book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning, or that gives the equivalent words in a different language.

2) a reference book on any subject, the items of which are arranged in alphabetical order

Actually, I'm glad you brought up the full of holes statement. Because it relates my original statement from the ABC news man to a dictionary definition. Both have a short, plain explanation. You either understand it and agree with it or not. There is no digging deeper into trying to prove it wrong. You either accept it, believe it or not.

I'm editing this because I happened to skip by you saying "that deviation from the textbook". Sorry. Still, I'll leave the original reply in this reply.

I tend to agree with the dictionary definitions - there has to be something that draws a line so to speak

You cannot just (stub an Toe) and create a NEW definition that overrides and established one

Just My OpinionMaybe I can create my own words and then my own definitions <-- Yeah thats it

File this under "As the Thread Turns," but one of the most remarkable things about our language is that it can and does change. New words make it into dictionaries, old ones slip off the map and definitions are surprisingly fluid. yoyo can cover this one with much more authority and grace.

But really, the evolution of new definitions is an ongoing thing. The most obvious example I can think of would involve the G word, but rather than risk another Shootout at the Circle J, I'll let you read between my lines.

It's not just that words change in meaning and connotation, Lea, but also that dictionaries give a bare definition--useful of course, but not really adequate for any sustained argument, certainly for abstract terms or complex ideas. The parallel discussion on "natural" and "unnatural" as it applies to ethics is a case in point. But that's a different kettle of fish, barrel of monkeys, can of worms . . . . .

Context, for those that bother to care about your post this AM, KM. Your cherry picking "quote" was part of my response to the observation that a definition found in the dictionary is the definitive end of a discussion. I actually said ~

But really, the evolution of new definitions is an ongoing thing. The most obvious example I can think of would involve the G word, but rather than risk another Shootout at the Circle J, I'll let you read between my lines

Please note my comment about the Circle J. Hopefully, my response to you this AM will be the only one. It would be so nice to see us not allow your obvious homophobia to take us all down another rathole thread that never ends because you just don't want it too.

How do you go from a cultural quotation (Stephen Fry) to "obvious homophobia"? I think you must have missed the link but you really need to exercise more restraint in my opinion... and for the record I refute the accusation.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.